At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If rights don't exist, you don't have the right to say that. ;)

man you're dumb. He said rights exist as a legal and or moral concept. And who would tell him he doesn't have the right to speak if rights don't exist as a necessity anyways?

Ad homenim fallacy.

Lol it's only ad hom if that's my only argument. If I just said you're dumb therefore you're wrong, then that'd be ad hom. But I didn't even make an argument, I just called you dumb because it's an accurate statement (evidence: starting old thread topics with one liners and literally no insight into the issue) and asked you a question.

Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If rights don't exist, you don't have the right to say that. ;)

man you're dumb. He said rights exist as a legal and or moral concept. And who would tell him he doesn't have the right to speak if rights don't exist as a necessity anyways?

Ad homenim fallacy.

Lol it's only ad hom if that's my only argument. If I just said you're dumb therefore you're wrong, then that'd be ad hom. But I didn't even make an argument, I just called you dumb because it's an accurate statement (evidence: starting old thread topics with one liners and literally no insight into the issue) and asked you a question.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If rights don't exist, you don't have the right to say that. ;)

man you're dumb. He said rights exist as a legal and or moral concept. And who would tell him he doesn't have the right to speak if rights don't exist as a necessity anyways?

Ad homenim fallacy.

Lol it's only ad hom if that's my only argument. If I just said you're dumb therefore you're wrong, then that'd be ad hom. But I didn't even make an argument, I just called you dumb because it's an accurate statement (evidence: starting old thread topics with one liners and literally no insight into the issue) and asked you a question.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If rights don't exist, you don't have the right to say that. ;)

man you're dumb. He said rights exist as a legal and or moral concept. And who would tell him he doesn't have the right to speak if rights don't exist as a necessity anyways?

Ad homenim fallacy.

Lol it's only ad hom if that's my only argument. If I just said you're dumb therefore you're wrong, then that'd be ad hom. But I didn't even make an argument, I just called you dumb because it's an accurate statement (evidence: starting old thread topics with one liners and literally no insight into the issue) and asked you a question.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If rights don't exist, you don't have the right to say that. ;)

man you're dumb. He said rights exist as a legal and or moral concept. And who would tell him he doesn't have the right to speak if rights don't exist as a necessity anyways?

Ad homenim fallacy.

Lol it's only ad hom if that's my only argument. If I just said you're dumb therefore you're wrong, then that'd be ad hom. But I didn't even make an argument, I just called you dumb because it's an accurate statement (evidence: starting old thread topics with one liners and literally no insight into the issue) and asked you a question.

So you're not going to answer my question? And you respond with w wiki link that tells me what I just told you? Lol thanks for proving me right.

You answer my question first, you a@@. If you can attack me, I can attack you.

Of course rights exist, our government's legal system is based on rights. But the problem with your stupid thread is it lacks context and has no insight on your part. Mhykiel pretty much sums it up in his fist post which your response shows you didn't even read it. Rights are subjective and their legitimacy is debatable (do they come from God? Government? The people?). We have rights in the US that don't exist in other countries and vice versa, does that mean they do or don't exist? Are rights suppose to be inalienable and universal to all peoples? These are philosophical questions you seem to be wholly unaware of. Starting with a stupid one liner then shows how little thought you put into this, and frankly other threads you start.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

That sounds like a question too philosophical for me to ponder at the moment o_0 but I do think the word 'right' is applied too liberally. (not too liberally as opposed to too conservatively; I meant it's applied in excess.)

I mean, people seem to use rights to justify anything that's a personal choice, e.g. people have 'rights' to deny the Holocaust. people have 'rights' to polygamous/incestuous marriages, etc. When people refute my points, a common argument I've run across on this site, on multiple forum posts, polls, etc., is that people have the right to do certain things that are wrong, even if they're universally considered incorrect (e.g. my question about banning pro-ana sites in Opinions). I think that's a flawed argument; people should only have rights if they're used responsibly. To use healthcare rights, of which you're an advocate, as another example, someone shouldn't have the 'right' to use emergency services for a simple upset stomach (with no other medical implications), for example; it shouldn't be their 'right' to abuse such services and I'm sure most people agree with that.

The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

See I don't think that works. I am of the George Carlin view that if something can be taken away it's not a right..............it's a privilege.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If a right is something that can not be taken away, there would be no need to fight for them.

But what is it exactly that you are fighting for ? A right or a privilege. Cause in the Carlin concept of rights, rights can't be taken away, ergo the fact that X can be taken away means it was not a right to begin with.

The problem here is that there are different understanding of what a "right" is or is not.

I think Carlin would regard what you call rights is just privileges under the name of rights.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

See I don't think that works. I am of the George Carlin view that if something can be taken away it's not a right..............it's a privilege.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If a right is something that can not be taken away, there would be no need to fight for them.

But what is it exactly that you are fighting for ? A right or a privilege. Cause in the Carlin concept of rights, rights can't be taken away, ergo the fact that X can be taken away means it was not a right to begin with.

The problem here is that there are different understanding of what a "right" is or is not.

I think Carlin would regard what you call rights is just privileges under the name of rights.

I agree rights are privileges. I think the only privileges a person has are those achieved through political struggle. And when a government hinders the persons ability to struggle for a right, it is an oppressive government.

I think this concept is accurate when discussing 'rights' in the context of politics and freedoms.

Taking your concept of rights I ask, what does a person have that can not be taken away?

If the answer is 'no thing' then rights by your definition do not exist.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Rights are privileges issued by the government or authority.

Some people feel their are Natural Rights. Such as saying there are rights innate to all human life endowed by our creator.

Some feel there are Natural Rights that are innate due to some ethical consideration of human life.

Historically rights are not granted unless struggled for. The narrative usually follows that the right is already granted, and the struggle is to have government recognize it as such.

So legally a right is something granted by an authority. Legally a Natural Right is granted by nature of being human.

Personally from my travels and reading history. The only Rights we have are the ones we refuse to give up.

If rights don't exist, you don't have the right to say that. ;)

man you're dumb. He said rights exist as a legal and or moral concept. And who would tell him he doesn't have the right to speak if rights don't exist as a necessity anyways?

Ad homenim fallacy.

Lol it's only ad hom if that's my only argument. If I just said you're dumb therefore you're wrong, then that'd be ad hom. But I didn't even make an argument, I just called you dumb because it's an accurate statement (evidence: starting old thread topics with one liners and literally no insight into the issue) and asked you a question.

So you're not going to answer my question? And you respond with w wiki link that tells me what I just told you? Lol thanks for proving me right.

You answer my question first, you a@@. If you can attack me, I can attack you.

Of course rights exist, our government's legal system is based on rights. But the problem with your stupid thread is it lacks context and has no insight on your part. Mhykiel pretty much sums it up in his fist post which your response shows you didn't even read it. Rights are subjective and their legitimacy is debatable (do they come from God? Government? The people?). We have rights in the US that don't exist in other countries and vice versa, does that mean they do or don't exist? Are rights suppose to be inalienable and universal to all peoples? These are philosophical questions you seem to be wholly unaware of. Starting with a stupid one liner then shows how little thought you put into this, and frankly other threads you start.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Go on you tube and look up George Carlin on rights

I agree with him on many things, but not this. Rights exist. Proof: We hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

At 4/12/2015 9:52:35 PM, LiberalProlifer wrote:And do you have the right to say that?

Go on you tube and look up George Carlin on rights

I agree with him on many things, but not this. Rights exist. Proof: We hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A baseless assertion is not a proof.

That claim is certainly not self evident.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12